An aerosolized vaccine for measles was developed in Mexico and has been used on more than 44 million children since 1980. Aerosolized vaccines have the advantages of being able to be administered by people without clinical training and do not cause injection‑associated infections. Despite these advantages, data about efficacy of the aerosolized vaccines against measles compared to subcutaneous injection of the vaccine have been inconsistent. Because of this, a large randomized controlled study was conducted with children in India. The primary outcome was an immune response to measles measured 91 days after the treatments. Among the 785 children receiving the subcutaneous injection, 743 developed an immune response, while among the 775 children receiving the aerosolized vaccine, 662 developed an immune response. Nicola Low et al., "A randomized, controlled trial of an aerosolized vaccine against measles," New England Journal of Medicine, 372 (2015), pp. 1519–1529. Can we safely use the large‑sample confidence interval for comparing the proportions of children who developed an immune response to measles in the aerosol and injection groups? Explain. Yes, assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval can be used since there are more than 10 successes (developing a response) and 10 failures (no response) in each group. Yes, assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval can be used since there are at least 15 successes (no response) and 15 failures (developing a response) in each group. No, even assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval cannot be used since there are not at least 10% successes (developing a response) and 10% failures (no response) in each group. There is not enough information to determine, even assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs.
An aerosolized vaccine for measles was developed in Mexico and has been used on more than 44 million children since 1980. Aerosolized vaccines have the advantages of being able to be administered by people without clinical training and do not cause injection‑associated infections. Despite these advantages, data about efficacy of the aerosolized vaccines against measles compared to subcutaneous injection of the vaccine have been inconsistent. Because of this, a large randomized controlled study was conducted with children in India.
The primary outcome was an immune response to measles measured 91 days after the treatments. Among the 785 children receiving the subcutaneous injection, 743 developed an immune response, while among the 775 children receiving the aerosolized vaccine, 662 developed an immune response.
Can we safely use the large‑sample confidence interval for comparing the proportions of children who developed an immune response to measles in the aerosol and injection groups? Explain.
Yes, assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval can be used since there are more than 10 successes (developing a response) and 10 failures (no response) in each group.
Yes, assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval can be used since there are at least 15 successes (no response) and 15 failures (developing a response) in each group.
No, even assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs, the large‑sample confidence interval cannot be used since there are not at least 10% successes (developing a response) and 10% failures (no response) in each group.
There is not enough information to determine, even assuming the samples can be thought of as SRSs.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
